First Reviewer

1. Is an installer for the tool available and easy to use? How close does it reach the goal of a fully automated installer?

(answer #1) Delete this text and place your answer here. The same for the questions below.

2. Is the end user documentation complete, relevant and presented on the OWASP wiki page?

(answer #2) MATT

3. Does the tool have an “About box” or similar help item which allows the end user to get an overview of the state of this tool? Is this information readily available and easy to find?

(answer #3)

4. Does the documentation on building the source provide the necessary information and detail to allow someone to build the tool? Is there sufficient detail and information for the target user? Is there any domain specific knowledge that is assumed and not provided?

(answer #4)

5. Is the tool's documentation available with the source code and would it readily discoverable by a new user of the tool?

(answer #5)

6. Is there anything missing that is critical enough to keep the release at a alpha quality?

(answer #6)

Stable Release Level Questions

7. Does the tool substantially address the application security issues it was created to solve?

(answer #7)

8. Is the tool reasonably easy to use?

(answer #8)

9. Does the documentation meet the needs of the tool users and is easily found?

(answer #9)

10. Do the build scripts work as expected? Can you build the tool? The goal is a “One-click” build.

(answer #10)

11. Is the bug tracking system usable? Is it hosted at the same place as the source code? (e.g. Google Code, Sourceforge)

(answer #11)

12. Have you noted any limitations of the tool that are not already documented by the project lead.

(answer #12)

13. Would you consider using this tool in your day to day work assuming your professional work includes a reason to use this tool? Why or why not?

(answer #13)

14. What, if anything, is missing which would make this a more useful tool? Is what is missing critical enough to keep the release at a beta quality?

(answer #14)

Second Reviewer

Leonardo Cavallari Militelli's Review:It is recommended that an OWASP board member or Global Projects Committee member be the second reviewer on Quality releases. The board has the initial option to review the project, followed by the Global Projects Committee.

(This FORM is EDITED via a template)

Beta Release Level Questions

1. Is an installer for the tool available and easy to use? How close does it reach the goal of a fully automated installer?

(answer #1) Delete this text and place your answer here. The same for the questions below.

2. Is the end user documentation complete, relevant and presented on the OWASP wiki page?

(answer #2) LEONARDO

3. Does the tool have an “About box” or similar help item which allows the end user to get an overview of the state of this tool? Is this information readily available and easy to find?

(answer #3)

4. Does the documentation on building the source provide the necessary information and detail to allow someone to build the tool? Is there sufficient detail and information for the target user? Is there any domain specific knowledge that is assumed and not provided?

(answer #4)

5. Is the tool's documentation available with the source code and would it readily discoverable by a new user of the tool?

(answer #5)

6. Is there anything missing that is critical enough to keep the release at a alpha quality?

(answer #6)

Stable Release Level Questions

7. Does the tool substantially address the application security issues it was created to solve?

(answer #7)

8. Is the tool reasonably easy to use?

(answer #8)

9. Does the documentation meet the needs of the tool users and is easily found?

(answer #9)

10. Do the build scripts work as expected? Can you build the tool? The goal is a “One-click” build.

(answer #10)

11. Is the bug tracking system usable? Is it hosted at the same place as the source code? (e.g. Google Code, Sourceforge)

(answer #11)

12. Have you noted any limitations of the tool that are not already documented by the project lead.

(answer #12)

13. Would you consider using this tool in your day to day work assuming your professional work includes a reason to use this tool? Why or why not?

(answer #13)

14. What, if anything, is missing which would make this a more useful tool? Is what is missing critical enough to keep the release at a beta quality?